SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 39117

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
M/s. KEN Infra – Appellant
Versus
Deputy State Tax Officer – Respondent
WP 33069/2025



THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.33069 of 2025

ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri K.P.Amarnath Reddy appears for the petitioner.

Sri K.Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for the respondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner filed an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 in Form GST REG-05 issued under Rule 9(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (Annexure P.6).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not show any application of mind and refers to the notice of the same date on which the order of rejection has been passed. The petitioner has been trying to file an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, which is not being entertained online.

Therefore, it has been compelled to approach this Court.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that if the petitioner files a fresh application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, it shall be considered in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to show cause.

6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 30.04.2025 and giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration within a period of two weeks. The petitioner is permitted to apply manually, if the said application is not entertained online. Respondent No.1 would consider it in accordance with law within a reasonable time after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

03.11.2025

vs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top